Dataset Information

Implementation of Patient Engagement Tools in Electronic Health Records to Enhance Patient-Centered Communication: Protocol for Feasibility Evaluation and Preliminary Results.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patient-physician communication during clinical encounters is essential to ensure quality of care. Many studies have attempted to improve patient-physician communication. Incorporating patient priorities into agenda setting and medical decision-making are fundamental to patient-centered communication. Efficient and scalable approaches are needed to empower patients to speak up and prepare physicians to respond. Leveraging electronic health records (EHRs) in engaging patients and health care teams has the potential to enhance the integration of patient priorities in clinical encounters. A systematic approach to eliciting and documenting patient priorities before encounters could facilitate effective communication in such encounters.

Objective

In this paper, we report the design and implementation of a set of EHR tools built into clinical workflows for facilitating patient-physician joint agenda setting and the documentation of patient concerns in the EHRs for ambulatory encounters.

Methods

We engaged health information technology leaders and users in three health care systems for developing and implementing a set of EHR tools. The goal of these tools is to standardize the elicitation of patient priorities by using a previsit "patient important issue" questionnaire distributed through the patient portal to the EHR. We built additional EHR documentation tools to facilitate patient-staff communication when the staff records the vital signs and the reason for the visit in the EHR while in the examination room, with a simple transmission method for physicians to incorporate patient concerns in EHR notes.

Results

The study is ongoing. The anticipated completion date for survey data collection is November 2021. A total of 34,037 primary care patients from three health systems (n=26,441; n=5136; and n=2460 separately recruited from each system) used the previsit patient important issue questionnaire in 2020. The adoption of the digital previsit questionnaire during the COVID-19 pandemic was much higher in one health care system because it expanded the use of the questionnaire from physicians participating in trials to all primary care providers midway through the year. It also required the use of this previsit questionnaire for eCheck-ins, which are required for telehealth encounters. Physicians and staff suggested anecdotally that this questionnaire helped patient-clinician communication, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conclusions

EHR tools have the potential to facilitate the integration of patient priorities into agenda setting and documentation in real-world primary care practices. Early results suggest the feasibility and acceptability of such digital tools in three health systems. EHR tools can support patient engagement and clinicians' work during in-person and telehealth visits. They could potentially exert a sustained influence on patient and clinician communication behaviors in contrast to prior ad hoc educational efforts targeting patients or clinicians.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03385512; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03385512.

International registered report identifier (irrid)

DERR1-10.2196/30431.

SUBMITTER: Tai-Seale M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8430844 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Electronic health record (EHR) use can enhance or undermine the ability of providers to deliver effective, humanistic patient-centered care. Given patient-centered care has been found to positively impact patient health outcomes, it is critical to provide formal education on patient-centered EHR communication skills. Unfortunately, despite increasing worldwide EHR adoption, few institutions educate trainees on EHR communication best practices.The goal of this research was to develop and deliver mandatory patient-centered EHR training to all incoming housestaff at the University of Chicago.We developed a brief patient-centered EHR use curriculum highlighting best practices based on a literature search. Training was embedded into required EHR onboarding for all incoming housestaff (interns, residents, and fellows) at the University of Chicago in 2015 and was delivered by institutional Clinical Applications Trainers. An 11-item posttraining survey consisting of ten 5-point Likert scale questions and 1 open-ended question was administered. Responses at the high end of the scale were grouped to dichotomize data.All 158 of the incoming 2015 postgraduate trainees participated in training and completed surveys (158/158, 100.0%). Just over half (86/158, 54.4%) were interns and the remaining were residents and fellows (72/158, 45.6%). One-fifth of respondents (32/158, 20.2%) were primary care trainees (defined as internal medicine, pediatric, and medicine-pediatric trainees), and the remaining 79.7% (126/158) were surgical or specialty trainees. Self-perceived pre- versus posttraining knowledge of barriers, best practices, and ability to implement patient-centered EHR skills significantly increased (3.1 vs 3.9, P<.001 for all). Most felt training was effective (90.5%), should be required (86.7%), and would change future practice as a result (70.9%). The only significant difference between intern and resident/fellow responses was prior knowledge of patient-centered EHR use barriers; interns endorsed higher prior knowledge than resident peers (3.27 vs 2.94 respectively, P=.03). Response comparison of specialty or surgical trainees (n=126) to primary care trainees (n=32) showed no significant differences in prior knowledge of barriers (3.09 vs 3.22, P=.50), of best practices (3.08 vs 2.94, P=.37), or prior ability to implement best practices (3.11 vs 2.84, P=.15). Primary care trainees had larger increases posttraining than surgical/specialty peers in knowledge of barriers (0.8 vs 0.7, P=.62), best practices (1.1 vs 0.8, P=.08), and ability to implement best practices (1.1 vs 0.7, P=.07), although none reached statistical significance. Primary care trainees also rated training as more effective (4.34 vs 4.09, P=.03) and felt training should be required (4.34 vs 4.09, P=.10) and would change their future practice as a result (4.13 vs 3.73, P=.02).Embedding EHR communication skills training into required institutional EHR training is a novel and effective way to teach key EHR skills to trainees. Such training may help ground trainees in best practices and contribute to cultivating an institutional culture of humanistic, patient-centered EHR use.

Project description:BackgroundEngaging patients in the delivery of health care has the potential to improve health outcomes and patient satisfaction. Patient portals may enhance patient engagement by enabling patients to access their electronic medical records (EMRs) and facilitating secure patient-provider communication.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to review literature describing patient portals tethered to an EMR in inpatient settings, their role in patient engagement, and their impact on health care delivery in order to identify factors and best practices for successful implementation of this technology and areas that require further research.MethodsA systematic search for articles in the PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase databases was conducted using keywords associated with patient engagement, electronic health records, and patient portals and their respective subject headings in each database. Articles for inclusion were evaluated for quality using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) for systematic review articles and the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs for empirical studies. Included studies were categorized by their focus on input factors (eg, portal design), process factors (eg, portal use), and output factors (eg, benefits) and by the valence of their findings regarding patient portals (ie, positive, negative, or mixed).ResultsThe systematic search identified 58 articles for inclusion. The inputs category was addressed by 40 articles, while the processes and outputs categories were addressed by 36 and 46 articles, respectively: 47 articles addressed multiple themes across the three categories, and 11 addressed only a single theme. Nineteen articles had high- to very high-quality, 21 had medium quality, and 18 had low- to very low-quality. Findings in the inputs category showed wide-ranging portal designs; patients' privacy concerns and lack of encouragement from providers were among portal adoption barriers while information access and patient-provider communication were among facilitators. Several methods were used to train portal users with varying success. In the processes category, sociodemographic characteristics and medical conditions of patients were predictors of portal use; some patients wanted unlimited access to their EMRs, personalized health education, and nonclinical information; and patients were keen to use portals for communicating with their health care teams. In the outputs category, some but not all studies found patient portals improved patient engagement; patients perceived some portal functions as inadequate but others as useful; patients and staff thought portals may improve patient care but could cause anxiety in some patients; and portals improved patient safety, adherence to medications, and patient-provider communication but had no impact on objective health outcomes.ConclusionsWhile the evidence is currently immature, patient portals have demonstrated benefit by enabling the discovery of medical errors, improving adherence to medications, and providing patient-provider communication, etc. High-quality studies are needed to fully understand, improve, and evaluate their impact.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether medical errors, family experience, and communication processes improved after implementation of an intervention to standardize the structure of healthcare provider-family communication on family centered rounds.DesignProspective, multicenter before and after intervention study.SettingPediatric inpatient units in seven North American hospitals, 17 December 2014 to 3 January 2017.ParticipantsAll patients admitted to study units (3106 admissions, 13171 patient days); 2148 parents or caregivers, 435 nurses, 203 medical students, and 586 residents.InterventionFamilies, nurses, and physicians coproduced an intervention to standardize healthcare provider-family communication on ward rounds ("family centered rounds"), which included structured, high reliability communication on bedside rounds emphasizing health literacy, family engagement, and bidirectional communication; structured, written real-time summaries of rounds; a formal training programme for healthcare providers; and strategies to support teamwork, implementation, and process improvement.Main outcome measuresMedical errors (primary outcome), including harmful errors (preventable adverse events) and non-harmful errors, modeled using Poisson regression and generalized estimating equations clustered by site; family experience; and communication processes (eg, family engagement on rounds). Errors were measured via an established systematic surveillance methodology including family safety reporting.ResultsThe overall rate of medical errors (per 1000 patient days) was unchanged (41.2 (95% confidence interval 31.2 to 54.5) pre-intervention v 35.8 (26.9 to 47.7) post-intervention, P=0.21), but harmful errors (preventable adverse events) decreased by 37.9% (20.7 (15.3 to 28.1) v 12.9 (8.9 to 18.6), P=0.01) post-intervention. Non-preventable adverse events also decreased (12.6 (8.9 to 17.9) v 5.2 (3.1 to 8.8), P=0.003). Top box (eg, "excellent") ratings for six of 25 components of family reported experience improved; none worsened. Family centered rounds occurred more frequently (72.2% (53.5% to 85.4%) v 82.8% (64.9% to 92.6%), P=0.02). Family engagement 55.6% (32.9% to 76.2%) v 66.7% (43.0% to 84.1%), P=0.04) and nurse engagement (20.4% (7.0% to 46.6%) v 35.5% (17.0% to 59.6%), P=0.03) on rounds improved. Families expressing concerns at the start of rounds (18.2% (5.6% to 45.3%) v 37.7% (17.6% to 63.3%), P=0.03) and reading back plans (4.7% (0.7% to 25.2%) v 26.5% (12.7% to 7.3%), P=0.02) increased. Trainee teaching and the duration of rounds did not change significantly.ConclusionsAlthough overall errors were unchanged, harmful medical errors decreased and family experience and communication processes improved after implementation of a structured communication intervention for family centered rounds coproduced by families, nurses, and physicians. Family centered care processes may improve safety and quality of care without negatively impacting teaching or duration of rounds.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02320175.

Project description:BackgroundElectronic health record (EHR) use can impede or augment patient-physician communication. However, little research explores the use of an educational comic to improve patient-physician-EHR interactions.ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of an educational comic on patient EHR self-advocacy behaviors to promote patient engagement with the EHR during clinic visits.MethodsWe conducted a prospective observational study with adult patients and parents of pediatric patients at the University of Chicago General Internal Medicine (GIM) and Pediatric Primary Care (PPC) clinics. We developed an educational comic highlighting EHR self-advocacy behaviors and distributed it to study participants during check-in for their primary care visits between May 2017 and May 2018. Participants completed a survey immediately after their visit, which included a question on whether they would be interested in a follow-up telephone interview. Of those who expressed interest, 50 participants each from the adult and pediatric parent cohorts were selected at random for follow-up telephone interviews 8 months (range 3-12 months) post visit.ResultsOverall, 71.0% (115/162) of adult patients and 71.6% (224/313) of pediatric parents agreed the comic encouraged EHR involvement. African American and Hispanic participants were more likely to ask to see the screen and become involved in EHR use due to the comic (adult P=.01, P=.01; parent P=.02, P=.006, respectively). Lower educational attainment was associated with an increase in parents asking to see the screen and to be involved (ρ=-0.18, P=.003; ρ=-0.19, P<.001, respectively) and in adults calling for physician attention (ρ=-0.17, P=.04), which was confirmed in multivariate analyses. Female GIM patients were more likely than males to ask to be involved (median 4 vs 3, P=.003). During follow-up phone interviews, 90% (45/50) of adult patients and all pediatric parents (50/50) remembered the comic. Almost half of all participants (GIM 23/50, 46%; PPC 21/50, 42%) recalled at least one best-practice behavior. At subsequent visits, adult patients reported increases in asking to see the screen (median 3 vs 4, P=.006), and pediatric parents reported increases in asking to see the screen and calling for physician attention (median 3 vs 4, Ps<.001 for both). Pediatric parents also felt that the comic had encouraged them to speak up and get more involved with physician computer use since the index visit (median 4 vs 4, P=.02) and that it made them feel more empowered to get involved with computer use at future visits (median 3 vs 4, P<.001).ConclusionsOur study found that an educational comic may improve patient advocacy for enhanced patient-physician-EHR engagement, with higher impacts on African American and Hispanic patients and patients with low educational attainment.